The oral trial against the Exalcaldesa de Lima Susana Villarán For the bribes received from companies Brazilian Odebrecht and OasI continue its course yesterday. During the hearing, details were unveiled before by the prosecutor José Domingo Pérezwho assured that the Ministry of Economy and Finance had to have participation in the concessions and contracts made on the tolls of Lima, but, he said, that did not happen. There was no technical opinion of the MEF, which was excluded on purpose by the exburgomaestre, violating the law.
Opening allegations
Yesterday, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office began with their openness allegations in the trial. Precisely, during his participation, prosecutor José Domingo Pérez said that Villarán’s management received approximately 11 million dollars from Odebrecht and OAS construction companies. Pérez said that these payments were a “consideration” for the benefits granted to companies.
In the case of Odebrecht, the former mayor is accused of having agreed an illicit payment of three million dollars in exchange for granting the concession of Lima’s tolls. According to the Prosecutor’s Office, the award of the Concession Routes of Lima was carried out in an unusual and famous way, and was signed on January 9, 2013, in the process of revocation. A third company was used, represented by César Meiggs Rojas, to which payments for overvalued or fictional services were made. This money was then collected and delivered to José Miguel Castro and Susana Villarán herself.
No MEF approval
In the case of OAS, the accusation focuses on the modifications to the yellow line concession contract. Prosecutor Pérez said that the number one addendum, signed on February 13, 2013, was approved without the technical opinion of the MEF, which violated Legislative Decree 1012. This addendum transformed the concession of self -sustainable to co -financed, which raised the investment of 480 to 561 million dollars. In addition, the concept of “special events” without legal support was introduced, allowing the company OAS to claim additional expenses and, thereby, increase the toll rate to the detriment of citizens. The Prosecutor’s Office assures that OAS delivered four million dollars for the Villarán re -election campaign in 2014, an agreement negotiated by José Miguel Castro.
Prosecutor José Domingo Pérez said that the Prosecutor’s Office has enough evidence, including testimonies of effective collaborators (such as Jorge Barata), expertise of the Comptroller and key witnesses. Despite the obstacles, such as the suspension of the trial against the former president of OAS, Leo Pinheiro, and the death of José Miguel Castro, Pérez was confident. “It does not harm because you have been able to hear that we have enough evidence, witnesses, people that I have indicated that they will identify before the judges in the status of effective collaborations, experts,” he said.
The Attorney General’s Office, on the other hand, reaffirmed everything said by the prosecutor in charge, and reiterated that the MEF did not make a technical review of the contracts made by the Municipality.
OAS’s former manager: “He wants to be an effective collaborator”
In a recent interview on Channel N, José Pinheiro’s lawyer, Fernando Silva, said that prosecutor José Domingo Pérez has rejected the effective collaboration of his defendant, although Pinheiro “had been developing correctly” this procedure.
“Prosecutor Pérez has pointed out that he has enough evidence so that the process is not affected. From my point of view, the effective collaboration that Mr. Pinheiro had been developing correctly, contributed a lot in the probative issue. However, for the prosecutor it is not important,” said Silva.
According to the lawyer, the argument of the Prosecutor’s Office to reject the collaboration agreement is that the fact that you have exercised your right to defend themselves in the public process generates “suspect” that the accused will not recognize the crimes. This position, according to the defender, is a “pretext” and annuls his client’s right of defense.
Pinheiro’s lawyer also clarified that you have not requested the case file in its entirety. He said that the prescription of two of the three crimes that are charged to his client has been requested: simple collusion and bribery (bribery), due to the passage of time since the events occurred (2013).
Recommended video
